Fantasy wrote:
Hi Mav (or Jimbo), Re http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fundraising.html In your function of Treasurer for the board,
Er, ah, I just volunteered to be treasurer if nobody else who was qualified/motivated didn't want the position. Nothing official at all at this point.
I think it would be really helpful to add Information (on a subpage?) regarding how much is already there / who gave on what date.
We can't give out that info if the people who are donating don't want us to release their names. Currently there is no way for people to indicate whether or not they want their donation to be anonymous, but I'm sure we could post periodic PDFs with the dates and amounts (no names).
A lot of comments (especially on the german wikipedia) are always "Who is this Jimbo",
He's the guy that pays the bills and makes all this happen (over a quarter million US bucks and counting last time I checked). What more is needed than that?
"What is this Wikimedia-Fondation", "Why should we trust this people",
So far the Foundation is just Jimbo and the reason you should trust him is because he has never given any reason not to be trusted while being in a position that could cause the end of the project on a simple whim (or to bastardize the concept by making it commercial; have you ever seen an add on Wikipedia?). He is now legally subordinate to the Foundation but as I said he is the Foundation so far. I still trust him completely though.
"Can we not have our own German Server/Organisation"...
Why? The Wikimedia Foundation /is/ the German organization too and we are far more stronger by pooling our resources instead of fragmenting them.
Maybe with a little bit of transparency we could show them that this is a really "Open" Organisation.
Slow down - we still need to set the darn thing up. Yes, it legally exists but a great deal of work still has to be done by the community to make the Wikimedia Foundation actually become more than just Jimbo.
Maybe something like this:
List of Donations as of xx.xx.2003 in total 123.4 USD:
And Euros, Yen, Canadian dollars and Pounds just so that people outside the US can get a grasp on what the numbers actually mean (even though the actual bank account will only have US dollars in it).
Date / Amount / Real-Name / (Country?) Date / Amount / Wiki-Username Date / Amount / (wants to stay) Anonymouns Date / (wants to keep amount secret) / Name or Anonymous ...
As I said there is currently no way for people to indicate all this info.
IMO, all we really should be worried about (especially at first) is pure numbers and dates, not who contributed how much. The "who" has to be kept confidential at least until we get a way for people to indicate that they wouldn't mind having this info made public. Even then it should be a community decision on whether or not to make the 'who' info easily available; last thing we need is for people to think that the size of their donations somehow gives them more power in our community. Merit and a good track record should still be the number one criteria we consider for that type of thing.
If the users see that the amount send was officially stated/received somewhere, maybe they would put more trust (and money) into Wikimedia/pedia.
For now at least, this info will have to be placed on a page on meta. I think I heard that we have received about US$1,000 in donations so far and that Jimbo put a couple thousand in the account when he opened it.
IIRC from skimming Wikitech-l, what we have right now in funds is almost what we need to upgrade our current servers, but there has been some talk about also buying a US$6,000 server in a few months (giving us a three server set-up). That's why a mention of the Foundation and our fundraising drive is an important thing to mention in the press release.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Reminds me. There really should be a Wikimedia-l, imho. Wikimedia is more than just the 'pedia, after all! (Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote...) I'd kind of like to get in on WM planning discussions- I worked for a nonprofit (in education, at that) for 5 years, was at one point in charge of reorganizing all the documentation and policy for it, have dealt with a lot of this stuff before.
-- Jake
Jake Nelson wrote:
Reminds me. There really should be a Wikimedia-l, imho. Wikimedia is more than just the 'pedia, after all! (Wiktionary, Wikibooks, Wikiquote...) I'd kind of like to get in on WM planning discussions- I worked for a nonprofit (in education, at that) for 5 years, was at one point in charge of reorganizing all the documentation and policy for it, have dealt with a lot of this stuff before.
I agree. I too have had my share of experience with nonprofits. Unfortunately a vast majority of members (however you may define that) of such organizations are blissfully ignorant when it comes to corporate documentation. They usually avoid meetings that discuss by-laws or the election of officers, and when things go wrong use that as an excuse to absolve themselves of all responsibility. Judging by the lack of response when these matters are raised, Wikimedia is no different.
Eclecticology
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Fantasy wrote:
Hi Mav (or Jimbo), Re http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fundraising.html In your function of Treasurer for the board,
Er, ah, I just volunteered to be treasurer if nobody else who was qualified/motivated didn't want the position. Nothing official at all at this point.
Hmmm! It's not about who will be treasurer, but about how we choose our treasurer.
"What is this Wikimedia-Fondation", "Why should we trust this people",
So far the Foundation is just Jimbo and the reason you should trust him is because he has never given any reason not to be trusted while being in a position that could cause the end of the project on a simple whim (or to bastardize the concept by making it commercial; have you ever seen an add on Wikipedia?). He is now legally subordinate to the Foundation but as I said he is the Foundation so far. I still trust him completely though.
Sigh!! This is not about trusting Jimbo. Such questions will continue as long as there are new newbies.
Maybe with a little bit of transparency we could show them that this is a really "Open" Organisation.
Slow down - we still need to set the darn thing up. Yes, it legally exists but a great deal of work still has to be done by the community to make the Wikimedia Foundation actually become more than just Jimbo.
But it is set up ... and who is "we" anyway? A document had to be filed with the Florida government to be incorporated in the first place. One of the questions that Florida asks on its form is how the directors will be chosen. That document and the statement from the state government that Wikimedia is recognized as a foundation is a good starting place. These could easily be scanned and put on the appropriate website.
IMO, all we really should be worried about (especially at first) is pure numbers and dates, not who contributed how much. The "who" has to be kept confidential at least until we get a way for people to indicate that they wouldn't mind having this info made public. Even then it should be a community decision on whether or not to make the 'who' info easily available; last thing we need is for people to think that the size of their donations somehow gives them more power in our community. Merit and a good track record should still be the number one criteria we consider for that type of thing.
There has never been a community decision to keep this information secret. The POV that the "who" has to be kept confidential is pure fiction. Community decisions work both ways; there is no basis for assuming that either position is the correct default position.
The argument for openness is just as strong as the fear that people's opinions will be influenced by the size of another's contributions. The sociology of this phenomenon could be a discussion by itself.
If the users see that the amount send was officially stated/received somewhere, maybe they would put more trust (and money) into Wikimedia/pedia.
For now at least, this info will have to be placed on a page on meta. I think I heard that we have received about US$1,000 in donations so far and that Jimbo put a couple thousand in the account when he opened it.
IIRC from skimming Wikitech-l, what we have right now in funds is almost what we need to upgrade our current servers, but there has been some talk about also buying a US$6,000 server in a few months (giving us a three server set-up).
This is not about Jimbo's well-known generosity, which needs to be appropriately celebrated. Nor is it about Mav's generosity for his expenses in securing a long list of domain names, which also needs recognition. It's about openness which allows even newbies to feel that they belong and have a stake in what is happening.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
There has never been a community decision to keep this information secret.
What's secret? There are no secrets here. I just posted all the details of the current account balances at the bank and at PayPal a few days ago.
Here's a link to the Florida state government website with information about the nonprofit filing: http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=N03000005323&n...
The nonprofit corporation exists, and most of the organizational details are to be in the bylaws. I'm working (slowly, and I apologize for that, but I want to get it right) with Alex (our pro-bono attorney who has given generously of his time in helping me with such stuff) to put the bylaws together carefully to be exactly the way I want them.
--Jimbo
"Jimmy Wales" skribis:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
There has never been a community decision to keep this information secret.
What's secret? There are no secrets here. I just posted all the details of the current account balances at the bank and at PayPal a few days ago.
Seems that the finances are the most transparent part up to now.
Here's a link to the Florida state government website with information about the nonprofit filing: http://www.sunbiz.org/scripts/cordet.exe?a1=DETFIL&n1=N03000005323&n...
"REFRESH is not supported for this page. Please use your browsers' BACK arrow to return to the previous page."
And http://www.sunbiz.org/ says:
Due to scheduled maintenance, the system will be unavailable from 5 p.m., Friday (9/19) to 8 a.m., Monday (9/22), and from 5 p.m., Friday (9/26) to 8 a.m., Monday (9/29).
OK, I'll try again on monday ...
Paul
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org